Dichotomy Discussion - Xenophobe v Xenophile

[PaulMClem]

Ok, cards on the table. Which is your preferred ethic and why? Must say I'd naturally lean towards xenophile but xenophobe does have some interesting mechanics. I'll almost certainly play both several times over, but was just interested in people's thoughts on this particular dichotomy - especially in light of Utopia/Banks.

 

[Cattlehunter]

Xenophobe is easier to me. When every single pop behaves exactly the same way and prefers exactly the same things I never have to think about any of that stuff. So I lean towards that.

 

[PaulMClem]

Xenophobe is easier to me. When every single pop behaves exactly the same way and prefers exactly the same things I never have to think about any of that stuff. So I lean towards that.

So you'd say xenophile requires more Pop management i.e. a need to pay more attention to what they're up to?

 

[henzington]

Xenophile requires friendly neighbors versus xenophobe is always useful with the bonus to border range and influence gain.

 

[Matoro_TBS]

Xenophile requires friendly neighbors versus xenophobe is always useful with the bonus to border range and influence gain.

Not exactly. Sometimes its deadly to be xenophobe, if next to you is some big, aggressive advanced start empire - xenophile can find allies pretty easily, thus get safety in federation, but xenophobes are alone. I would argue being xenophobe gets harder especially in harder difficulties, as you have to rely only in yourself.

 

[General Retreat]

So you'd say xenophile requires more Pop management i.e. a need to pay more attention to what they're up to?

Ish. You can let your planets do whatever they want with xenophile and there won't be any negative consequences, but to get the most out of the ethos you will want to manage your pops too get as many different species as possible onto each planet for the accumulative happiness bonuses. Xenophobe by contrast just means enslaving/purging and ensuring your native pops and xeno pops are segregated on different planets.

Personally I like xenophile, which also currently benefits from the migration splurge effect that's being patched out for Banks.

 

[The Founder]

Ok, cards on the table. Which is your preferred ethic and why? Must say I'd naturally lean towards xenophile but xenophobe does have some interesting mechanics. I'll almost certainly play both several times over, but was just interested in people's thoughts on this particular dichotomy - especially in light of Utopia/Banks.

I would love to play more Xenophile, but them damn thing is too hard to manage in 1.4.
To actually use the happiness bonus you need Ethic convergence. And would have to resettle pops specifically in 1.4. 1.5 returns to the global bonuses via the Faction, so it is a lot better in that regard.

That being said, I avoid Xenophobe due to the Relationship penalties and the AI types liberation puts me at. I actually had some fun with a Fan Xenophpobe/Pacifist, wich would only become better with 1.5's Support for tall play. And the option to switch Ethics later:
I will totally try a Fan Pury playthrough in 1.5 (either as CoM, the Fan. Xenophobe/Pacifist flipping over to miltiarist or my Krikkit playthrough).

 

[Naelar]

Xenophobe for almost all cases and combos, as the purge policies is very nifty and border disputes are easy when you're a xenophobe, you win those disputes.

 

[sdeezie]

Honestly I think both of them pair well with different expansion strategies, but I think xenophobe is the more difficult choice, by the numbers.

Xenophile diplomacy lets you more easily keep your enemies close until such time as you're ready to take them on (should you decide to), so from a realpolitische perspective, xenophile gives you a more flexible foreign policy, I think.

It's better to have just the purgers and zealots hate you initially, and the rest of your neighbors like you or be indifferent to you, if your goal is to remain independent and grow your borders. Even just one additional neighboring enemy can spell the end of the game for you, early-on.

Xenophobes can do the same, of course, but the xenophobe penalty to relations makes it just that much harder, and the purge penalties to relations, at least as of 1.4, are even more severe.

 

[Druesling]

I like playing without either xenophobe/xenophile, since both are very constricting in diplomacy and war.

 

[mathers]

Ok, cards on the table. Which is your preferred ethic and why? Must say I'd naturally lean towards xenophile but xenophobe does have some interesting mechanics. I'll almost certainly play both several times over, but was just interested in people's thoughts on this particular dichotomy - especially in light of Utopia/Banks.

I like to play as Earth therefore by Stellaris Xenophile though imho Earth should be An Individualist, Materialist, Militarist if anything with staying natural on this axis.

In Utopia probably xenophobe would fit my powerplay style better.

 

[RELee]

The xenophiles can be a pain (for me) because of everybody spamming with "friend" requests, and if my race has the ability to migrate I will sooner than later get tired of the endless requests and agree to a migration policy with typically kills my growth curve since I have evidently not learned the trick of creating an environment that encourages immigration rather than emigration.

Being a phobic is easier. It just insures that everybody hates me and so my people learn to eat worms, and Blorg, usually with a fine Chianti.

 

[Jaikstheuggle]

Xenophile for me. If i can keep as much neighbours friendly as possible i am a happy conqueror. It doesnt always work that way however, my startup would be medium to large galaxy and 3 or 4 opposing empires. No overpowered ones, i always turn that option off, and make the start spreaded. I go for safe.....
Yeah , i am a relatively beginning player , need to know the inns and outs before i make conditions tougher.

 

[Stellaris Fan]

I mostly use Xenophile it opens up more diplomatic options. If you are able to from a federation it is also good because they will support you in all wars. I have one the game 9 times I think it was 7 out of the 9 Xenophile and another big plus is the federation fleet it requires no maintenance but sometimes being a xenophobe can be goof fun

 

[Slynx]

can i say i hate them both almost equally? or i must choose?
if the later, then, probably Xenophiles...cuz xenophobes are racist that don't have the balls to admit that they are maniacal serial killers and they don't need excuses to kill anyone. (unless we're speaking about slaver-only xenophobes...they are strange, but fine)

 

[mathers]

I mostly use Xenophile it opens up more diplomatic options. If you are able to from a federation it is also good because they will support you in all wars. I have one the game 9 times I think it was 7 out of the 9 Xenophile and another big plus is the federation fleet it requires no maintenance but sometimes being a xenophobe can be goof fun

Is it just me that I see a lot of xenophobic militarist federations? Galactic empires banding up, while me as a xenophile cannot grow my fed above 2?

 

[Stellaris Fan]

Is it just me that I see a lot of xenophobic militarist federations? Galactic empires banding up, while me as a xenophile cannot grow my fed above 2?

I have a federation with 11 members and I am xenophile we own about 1/2 of the galaxy I do have AI empires on max and on the biggest galaxy

 

[nrader]

Is there even need to think about this? Xenophobe, obviously.
Xenophile bonuses dont work in MP, and that's all that matters for me.

 

[Stellaris Fan]

Is there even need to think about this? Xenophobe, obviously.
Xenophile bonuses dont work in MP, and that's all that matters for me.

That is true for multiplayer never do xenophile

 

[RELee]

Since I only play SP these days, then there is a great need for me to think about it.